Changing Economic Behavior

This section focuses on the changing nature of peoples’ economic behavior in the Tongan economy as a whole. Economic change resulting from the growth of international migration in Tonga goes side by side with socio-political development (see Chapter 6). However, the economic effects of international migration in Tongan society are the driving force of change. The areas where the changes have been most intense include the Westernization of lifestyles, growing materialism, the opening up of Tonga to the outside world and vice-versa, the increase in the number of educated people and returning migrants, and the emergence of new socio-economic or religious groupings resulting in a new distribution of power. Most of these changes, have taken place because of fundamental changes occurring in the economic sphere, but all have combined to produce a new sociopolitical scene that seems to hasten the end of the old polity (see Helu, 1999).

At the village level, it is noticeable that families who have migrants overseas are economically better off than other families who have none.

Successful returning migrants have become very powerful economically in some villages. The same applies to the district level and the national level.

Consequently, these migrants have become well known, with power and

influence in village, district, and national activities. In Tonga, there are phrases commonly used to describe such people such as mo’unga’i tangata, tangata ivilahi, or tangata lahi (i.e. politically and economically powerful people) with power and influence in village and district affairs. The key economic notion of profit-making introduced by returning migrants and educated elites seemed perplexing at the dawn of the modernization era in Tongan society. Given the fact that the profit motive was opposed to traditional cultural values, it quickly became associated with the emerging hafekasi culture.

In the village of Leimatu’a, Muhu Kau returned in early 2000 to live in the village after spending more than fifteen years in California. He built a store in the village where he sells American-style clothes, foodstuffs, toiletries, and perfumes of different sorts, amongst other goods. Four times a year, a container of goods for his store arrives in Leimatu’a. He returns occasionally to the States to work and import goods for his store. As a result, Mr. Kau is considered a tangata lahi and he receives all kind of respect from the community, as well as from the chief of the village. While interviewing Mr. Kau, he gave an account of his childhood upbringing in Leimatu’a. He was considered nothing in the village when he was young because he was poor. He later migrated to America as a Mormon convert. According to Mr. Kau, he is now a different person in the village and everyone wants to be his friend (interview with Kau, 2005).

Siolo Tonga explained that he migrates occasionally to work with his brother in Sacramento because by working on the land he is no longer able to support his family. According to Mr. Tonga, other people in the village have better houses and cars because they move in and out of Leimatu’a to work

overseas. His brother in Sacramento asked him many times to come to America but he refused. However, looking at the success of others who migrated on a short-term basis encouraged him to migrate for the first time. In so doing, he could be able to build a better house and buy a used car for the first time (interview with Tonga, 2005).

Viliami Lavulavu of Leimatu’a migrated to New Zealand in the early 1970s. He returned back to Leimatu’a in 2000 becoming one of the successful farmers in the village. Lavulavu was a stonemason contractor in Auckland, New Zealand, for many years. According to Lavulavu, while he was in New Zealand, he always thought of returning home one day. He worked and saved money for more than ten years and his dream came true in 2000 when he returned and become a farmer. He is now employing local village people on his farm and he is now become a tangata lahi, not only in the village but for the whole of the Vava’u group (interview with Lavulavu, 2004).

The way people approach economic matters in Leimātu’a has been transformed sharply since few decades ago according to Fotu, the chief of Leimātu’a. As the leader of the village, he believes that international migration is one of the key reasons why people change their attitudes towards the traditional mode of economic activities. According to Fotu, the traditional practice of polopolo where his kāinga give the best output from the land to him has declined.

People send the best from the land to their families overseas and the rest is sold at the local market. It is a common practice for people to do this every year. In return, they receive different forms of remittances from their relatives in the host countries (interview with Fotu, 2004).

This is common in all villages in the Kingdom of Tonga as returning migrants with capital and receivers of remittances are more successful than others. In some cases, Tonga migrants stay abroad while a reliable family member or a friend runs the business back home for them. This is common in many villages as migrants finance the growing of agricultural products such as root crops, kava, and vegetables for export or to sell in the local markets. They only come to visit especially during the winter times in the host countries. While in Tonga, they are well known for the amount of money they spend and they are considered as kau tu’umalie (rich people). Their business partners back home become more successful economically as they are able to elevate their economic status in society.

To end this section, let me give an example of the change in the traditional socio-economic status of fahu. The change in this concept seems to reflect the overall economic change in the Kingdom of Tonga since 1966. The decline in the importance of fahu (see Chapter 3) and the superior rank of the sister in relation to the brother are among the key changes brought about by the economic transformation (see Māhina. 1992). In Tongan society, the sister and her children were traditionally of superior social rank than the brother and his children. As such, it was the traditional responsibility of the brother to heed the economic needs of his sister, especially in relation to output from the land. The brother has to provide his sister with the tokonaki (best output from the land) and there is no taboo to prohibit the sister and her children from taking anything from her brother’s land. Another associated traditional notion is called fa’iteliha’anga (freedom to do whatever you like at the expense of someone you

are related to by blood) which implies that your mother’s brother is your fa’iteliha’anga.

Moreover, the sister-brother relationships in the context of fahu are part of a typical Pacific traditional mode of exchange. The brother offers the products of his hand (ngaue) from the land to the sister who in return, offers the products she produces in the falehanga, the place where women produce traditional goods and handicrafts. These take the form of koloa (women’s exchange goods) such as ngatu (tapa cloth) or traditional fala (mats) and fihu (fine mats) as a token of appreciation. This is done to maintain her pule (authority) while the brother maintains his mafai (power) (ibid.). The brother thus provides economic security to his sister as a cultural obligation, expecting nothing in return except koloa gifts of appreciation if the sister is able to provide them.

In fact, the new economic mode allows very little room for such traditional exchange to take place. In some cases, the exchange continues to exist but in a more capitalist form. The transition from subsistence to the commercial mode of agricultural activities has put limitations on the bond within the fahu institution. The brother in most cases is still willing to offer produce to his sister, but in return his sister, who sympathizes with the changing economic landscape, now feels obliged to gives something in return, sometimes including money.

In this manner, the social bond through ‘ofa continues as the sister appreciates the work of her brother and contributes something in return to help him on the land. In theory, the sister and children still have higher social rank but the socio-economic relationships are reflected in the monetary value of the return gift.

To conclude this chapter, remittances from Tongan migrants overseas remain a vital source of revenue for the survival of the Tongan economy.

Despite the claim that remittances are going to decline in the near future due to the changing attitudes of Tongan migrants, especially the younger generations, there is no sign of such a phenomenon in recent times. Current statistics show that remittances have been increasing rapidly in the last few years and are now taking on new forms (see Tables 5.1 to 5.6).

Furthermore, the economic effects of international migration have failed to build up the kingdom’s economy. This is due to the increasing reliance on remittances and foreign aid. In fact, it is important to maintain its flow as a safety valve for the survival of the Tongan economy. The effects of international migration on the economic behavior of Tongans are alarming. New economic classes are emerging in society and the way Tongan people look at the traditional economic practices such as the fahu custom are changing due to the transformation in the economic landscape. This is a change from a traditional mode of economic activities to a modern capitalist one. In fact the economic changes brought about by international migration are leading the way to change in other aspects of the socio-cultural make up of society, and we will consider the impact on Tongan society in the next chapter.